ReviewBriefings in bioinformatics2022
Propagation, detection and correction of errors using the sequence database network.
Review in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Paipu framework enables creation of a large-scale mammalian cancer transcriptomics atlas.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Article
- Computational Approaches for Pathway-Centric Analysis of Protein Post-Translational Modifications.Proteomics · 2025Review
- Computational Approaches for Pathway-Centric Analysis of Protein Post-Translational Modifications.Proteomics · 2025Review
- NGATHA carpel development genes evolved in the common ancestor of seed plants.The Plant journal : for cell and molecular biology · 2025Article
- aurora: a machine learning gwas tool for analyzing microbial habitat adaptation.Genome biology · 2025Article
- DFAST_QC: quality assessment and taxonomic identification tool for prokaryotic Genomes.BMC bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Biological databases in the age of generative artificial intelligence.Bioinformatics advances · 2025Article
- Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction for Designing Biocatalysts and Investigating their Functional Mechanisms.JACS Au · 2024Review
- Beyond Lux: methods for species and photoreceptor-specific quantification of ambient light for mammals.BMC biology · 2024Article
- Integration of background knowledge for automatic detection of inconsistencies in gene ontology annotation.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
- Article
- MicroAnnot: A Dedicated Workflow for Accurate Microsporidian Genome Annotation.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Manual correction of genome annotation improved alternative splicing identification of Artemisia annua.Planta · 2023Article
- Metadata integrity in bioinformatics: Bridging the gap between data and knowledge.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2023Review
- Real or fake? Measuring the impact of protein annotation errors on estimates of domain gain and loss events.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Nucleotide and protein sequences stored in public databases are the cornerstone of many bioinformatics analyses. The records containing these sequences are prone to a wide range of errors, including incorrect functional annotation, sequence contamination and taxonomic misclassification. One source of information that can help to detect errors are the strong interdependency between records. Novel sequences in one database draw their annotations from existing records, may generate new records in multiple other locations and will have varying degrees of similarity with existing records across a range of attributes. A network perspective of these relationships between sequence records, within and across databases, offers new opportunities to detect-or even correct-erroneous entries and more broadly to make inferences about record quality. Here, we describe this novel perspective of sequence database records as a rich network, which we call the sequence database network, and illustrate the opportunities this perspective offers for quantification of database quality and detection of spurious entries. We provide an overview of the relevant databases and describe how the interdependencies between sequence records across these databases can be exploited by network analyses. We review the process of sequence annotation and provide a classification of sources of error, highlighting propagation as a major source. We illustrate the value of a network perspective through three case studies that use network analysis to detect errors, and explore the quality and quantity of critical relationships that would inform such network analyses. This systematic description of a network perspective of sequence database records provides a novel direction to combat the proliferation of errors within these critical bioinformatics resources.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.